to be the foundation of the japanese foreign policy. in managing the important relations like this, there are threepoints -- three points i have, no surprise, no overt -- no over politicizing. and note taking for granted. and i think that these are more true than the -- when the administration gets together. thank you. >> other other questions from the audience? . . >> alright, other questions from the audience? if you could come a could you come up? you, go ahead.

you are holding your hand up. there you go. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i want to ask you a simple difficult question. under the japanese political atmosphere of continuity in increasing frustration, seeking for change it is naturally getting difficult with the sensitive issues such as the okun know what issues. both the japanese and u.s. government both. this brings the possibility that the u.s. government allows for gives the japanese government some room for maneuver, such as the more time to cool down on

the relocation issue of the u.s. marines to qualm, ward to accept some new proposal from japan's government to reduce some u.s. forces agreement. thank you. >> i know mike will want to say-- i will just say something directly. first of all one of the things they teach you at the state the purpose is to repeat which are spokesman has said, so rusty demming taught me that. it took me years to other and but i have finally mastered it. and i think on this particular issue i would prefer-- refer you to whether state department spokesman said about our expectations about going ahead. i would say however there are expectations that are going to make progress. the shoes on okinawa have been with the sale of time. we have made some progress and we would like to continue and it

is very important to us and we feel like we are for closely with the government of japan and we will continue to work closely what i would also stand by the statement that our present their -- press secretary said yesterday. >> what is going to be the relationship between japan and china? i would just like to throw that on the table. do you see that changing? >> it is going to be fun and interesting rollercoaster ride. in mike within japan is going to be in a position where it has to try to work with others-- other states and moving 1.1 billion, in what we are calling it capitalist into a different arena and somehow deal with china's interests. i tillie joke that it was actually wrote a real issue a few years ago i was in beijing in visited the director policy planning and i said what do you working non-comment he said how

to keep you americans distracted from small middle eastern countries. i think at the time there was significant criticism by japan privately to communicate with the bush administration on the absence of high level american government officials at kiso myths in asia and one of the things i was very pleased by was secretary clinton cummins she is doing it globally, is the real presence, going to japan first, being in asia, putting in face time. i think there has been some distraction because of other issues and i think that that helps japan someone deal with china and its growth and its potential in the region at the same time japan is going to invest in china but it also has important issues that i hope you see more mature leadership mboh sais because i have often said that one of the negative consequences and moral hazards of the strong american military maceachen in the region is it

propst-- promise irresponsible behavior by korean, japanese and chinese leaders who want to exploit on a short-term basis a virulence nationalism because they know there's not going to be conflict because we are there, so we can get away from it and i hope the methot evette days. >> i hope that this mean that the conclusion is that the u.s. pulls out of asia-- they will be responsible. anyway, and not sure we want to assess the pieces or will, but japan and china come asianness historically had a hierarchical relationship and others have said this is the first time where japan and china are powerful of the same time. china is moving up in japan has an awful lot of national power and it is deeply uncomfortable. you can see it in the opinion polls in the deep anxiety about china in japan. it is chinese submarines, it is

nuclear weapons, it is chinese blocking japanese and diplomatic negotiations around the world. it is poison dumplings. it is pretty broad and yet at the same time china has been japan's largest trading partner, larger than us, for about four years now so it is a complicated mix of rivalry and interdependency that fundamentally won't change. in the near term i think this government has been very clear, this new government, hatoyama, they want to move closer to china. they want to emphasize history shoes. that is it that thing as kurt said, it is synergist. does malpass when there is tension. i think steve says ratley roller-coaster and there may be a danger that if the government tries to hard they are going to start provoking a reaction at home because of the deep anxiety in china so a complicated roller-coaster but some good initial steps. >> you wanted to say something?

alright, right here. >> a follow-up to bob's question. the question is for secretary campbell and other panelists. we all know that taiwan has long been a very important factor in japan china relationships in u.s.-china relationship speak how do you you see the taiwan being affected in the new japan china relationship and the new japan u.s. relationship? thank you very much. >> okay, i see continuity in the u.s. cents. i think the administration has started out very clearly in terms of our international commitments. we worked very closely over the course of the last several weeks in a humanitarian effort in response to the tragedy in

taiwan with the typhoon and i think you are going to see dialogue and appropriate interaction between the united states and taiwan. i am going to leave it to mike to talk about what we think we might expect to see between japan and taiwan and indeed other countries. i would say one thing about the overall campaign generally. there has been probably more of the focus on domestic issues then financial issues than there was on international issues. that does not mean anything necessarily going forward but as a general proposition that was the case. in terms of specifics outside of the u.s.-japan relations and some general statements about wanting to have a closer relationship with asia, one of the positives in some respects for any incoming government is that they are in some respects unencumbered by an enormous number of commitments.

the platform is relatively general and i don't think actually there has been much said about this or other issues but i will leave it to mike and others to comment on that. >> i think there will be a variety of views in taiwan just as there were a variety of views within the ldp just as there are a of the use within the republican and democratic parties. if you were watching this closely then i would say it was foreign minister because there is some in dpj it want to do a lot to improve relations with china. there are others who are quite pro-taiwan so i won't go into names, but there are different views on this. but in general i think curtis right, the falling of relations has made it easier for everyone else a lease for now, so i would not expect any big changes. >> okay, the next question. here. she has got a mic there think.

>> paul of reuters news agency. following on that theme, you know, i think this is probably mike green question, the dpj is a broad umbrella of factions and some are right leaning, and i'm wondering if it is possible that this sort of history view that they are going to deal with déàa will raise hackles on the side of the party and you could have another cabinet minister doing something provocative. you recall during the non-ldp government of the early '90s that were played by that because they assembled a group of right-wing people in the cabinet. >> i think there is briefings room on the history issue. i think that hatoyama promised the to go to the shrine did not cause any great backlash in the political debate in japan. on the history issue for the time being there is a little bit of room and i think there will not be pressure within the dpj but you are right to point out

that they are very to confuse within the party. there probably 40 or 50 members of the dpj for as conservative as the most conservative ldp. kurt makes a good point about where their going to focus their political capital and i think they are going to focus on changing the domestic political economy because the reality is we are all excited about this big change but is possible that in three months or six months these guys will be gone. so mismanagements could cause realignment. they have to win in the upper house election next summer, so if you are the architect of this victory and the guy he wants to win next summer for the dpj you don't want to push foreign-policy issues that split your policy, you want to fight with the obama administration. president obama has 82% support in japan. there's got a whole lot of political hay to be made with the big fight with the u.s. so i think that is one more reason why do you will see a lot more

focus on changing the domestic political economy, starting to steal away constituencies from the ldp and get ready to really talk to them which is what is hatoyama, vicaro rove of japan, is really all about. >> i would like to just quickly, you got to wait very good point. in the early 1980's henry kissinger wrote an article critiquing the ldp and sing one of the reasons you could negotiate with the ldp is because it had all of these factions and the eats faction thought something different about policy. i remember because it was my first letter to a newspaper that was published, dr. kissinger with all due respect you were quite wrong because it was driven by power differences, but henry kissinger's article which if it were resurrected we be completely about the dpj today. notch is power inside the party, you are going to have an incredible heterodoxy among the very large at friends institution which they have not figured out how to discipline

that yet and how to create conflict management mechanisms to move forward and we have seen that in the rotating leadership with con and akaka and hatoyama who are all themselves, are going to have to figure that out but it is not just them, it is other folks to. i will look up that kissinger peace and bring it back but in that sense that is a real handicap when it comes to moving and they have got to figure that out soon and from my sources i don't think they have. >> i would just add dr. kissinger called earlier and asked if you were going to be here. [laughter] >> keogh wees knows. >> it is also not clear that dpj will replicate exactly this actionable approach to politics that the lbj did in the truth is that approach sometimes makes it difficult to do the kind of policy concessions, dialogue,

implementation that you see in successful democracies, so i agree very much the jury is still held, and we will see but this is an enormous party, with a theory white set of views on almost every imaginable issue. >> factions were easier. >> ambassador paul wolfowitz is here. >> this has been addressed the guests with the last question but i am curious whether in it you think the desire to improve relations with china might push japan to do something more than just fewer visits to the shrine. it is striking when you compare japan and germany and what a great job the germans have done in addressing their past when the porch of the japanese have done. they talked about improving relations but it always comes up as an issue with china. do you think there is in the

possibility with all the other issues that have to dress? bead in the early '70s, this is trichet would take least three generations to reconcile. i've never known how long a generation is bemuddle think we are there yet. >> 20 years. >> not too long from now. the difference obviously i think between japan and china and france and germany is that the chinese have not done with france obviously could do which is internal reconciliation about their own history and the history of the communist party, i ended my view, until china can reconcile internally it won't happen with japan. not to put all the burden on japan but that is one big obstacle. ..

>> we've already mentioned that one of the potential disconnects, if not properly coordinated, is how do we talk to and with north korea and about what. and the administration has been very consistent in saying we're not going to talk to them except in terms of negotiations about along the lines of the previous agree. there's pressure to negotiate with them to see if that's possible to negotiate which gets us into a chicken and egg problem. until the japanese work out how they're going to think about us dealing with the north, it might be helpful if you could walk us through a bit how you're seeing this chicken and egg problem at the moment.

what's the difference between discussions and negotiations and steve boswitt going to talk but not until they say in advance it's going to be about the bombs, that sort of thing. they say in advance is going to be about the bomb. >> much of this as you know, chris, is far ahead of where we are and it's well known to many people here steve basra and the ambassador are in a plane today for consultations with our allies and japan, south korea and china to talk about next steps. no commitments have been made about either talks, discussions, diplomacy come negotiations at all. nothing visa fi north korea. we are at an early stage and which we are presenting some ideas how to go forward with both japan, south korea and

china. i think the basics of that are still very clear. we are committed to the six party framework. we think the most important agreements with korea are in bed in that process particularly 2005. we i think are united in our believe we must see commitment in a clear and firm commitment from north korea backed up by irreversible steps that commitment to a nuclear-free north korea and we have other issues we are going to want to discuss associated with proliferation. overall we are at your earliest possible stages. we've just come out of six or seven months of severe provocations. we continue to implement u.n. resolution 1784 and i would underscore on that despite some of the discussion about the next

steps in discussions or dialogue the most interesting things that have happened in recent months is other countries not just asia but the middle east and others are beginning to take steps to implement 1784 and aspects of the psi that is an indication as long just asia but countries elsewhere that appreciate and understand some of these provocative steps transfer dangerous technologies are not only bad for countries in the region but also globally. so i think overall where you will see over the course of the next several months are closer interactions clearly in the process of reevaluating their own interactions with north korea. china has been in the process of a rather deep reflection of north korea now for several months and clearly we have to give japan some time to formulate if they are going to

have a different set of perspectives on north korea we have got to give them time and we recognize their views on north korea and this process of five parties. it's essential to keep them engaged. that's where we are so why can't get in evidence will will look like negotiations and what is our specific approach to various issues because we are well before that in this process. >> do we have in the women that want to ask questions? so far it has been all meals. this lady right here. >> kyoto news. setting aside a larger security and economic issues for the moment the new japanese government can do to reassure the u.s.? mr. campbell, you mentioned ma throwing out the bureaucrats as the enemy and you said that china engagement would be good. are there other things they can do in the next few months?

>> meshaal i'm sorry i didn't recognize you over there. >> can i just say on the issue of the bureaucrats that is not a government coordinated position on behalf of the united states. [laughter] we have got to keep the bureaucrats. that is and what i was suggesting. i was making a personal observation of people i have worked with. >> despite your job nobody looks at you as a bureaucrat. >> i think there are some issues we are going to look to see commitment on the part of japan. the general assembly is coming out. the truth is as both my colleagues underscored japan's leadership in the united nations is an essential and it's a leadership role, not a follow ship rolled. they take initiatives on a range of issues we want to see that activism continue at the united nations and we will see some evidence of that later this

month. i would like to see a continuing commitment from japan and climate change on issues associated and the lead up to some very difficult negotiations in copenhagen and i think for our eight range of other international issues we're coming into the flu season japan has played an incredibly important role in some of the aspects associated with early steps on h1n1 so those are basic steps but i think overall, continuing on the course that japan has been on will be an important contribution to the maintenance of peace and stability and activist and global role. >> i think, i am not in the government so i can say this. i think the toe in "the new york times" and huffington post article about globalization and american capitalism is find during the election campaign and the transition. our candidates have said things we kind of scratch our heads and

some at pfizer's get into a speech and everyone else regrets and these things happen. an early indication -- [laughter] i won't give examples. an early indication to me will be if this rhetoric stops when they come into power. it's not particularly helpful. it helps explain the philosophy. you don't need it when it is a government. that would be one thing. i think right now my sense is the dj is testing to see what they can get away with from the promises they made about stopping the ships in afghanistan and indian ocean and this and that and an early good sign will be if they stopped asking which of the wish lists they could have and dialogue with administration about what they can do instead of saying we don't want to send ships to the indian ocean dialogue based on what can we do in afghanistan let's put the ships aside what can we do and hear our resources japan has. that kind of agenda with the

obama administration. yes, we can. here's the kind things japan can do. it will be their decision and will be a man you but right now my sense is interactions are what we set in the campaign we won't do this. move away from the can't do and start the agenda and dialogue and here is what japan can do. that would immediately be recognized long not only in the u.s. but other countries. these are people who want to keep japan in the international i was going to say the fight, but in the problem solving business internationally. >> if i can a short while ago a few months ago the society of southern california had its 100th anniversary i went back for that, a big dinner, universal studios may be some of you were there, the ambassador was there and this is cleared by him to put on the record. i joked about the importance of the former prime minister being barack obama as first official guest at the white house, first official foreign leader guest

and i asked how high the price was and he says that is a decade old thinking. we are not in that anymore but at the plate in my view y barack obama invited him to that, to have that place very important is on the international economic questions. i don't believe the global heart attack is over. i believe there's significant challenges ahead on how to deal with the problem of developing countries. japan still sits on today the largest capital pilot in the world larger than china in terms of when you do with financing is important. japan has severe economic problems but what it can do in parameters of the international economic order are absolutely vital and i think in my view the impression is japan has been somewhat internally consumed and not playing at its wheat if he will in this international level. one of the things i think it needs to do and barack obama is focused on is our partners and coast to words if you will of a

revitalized international moving into that and i think we need to show their ability to play in that game. >> i would say one thing. i am struck by his work. we are assuming or at least i assumed we will have a sort of plastic period leisurely in the sense where the new government can come up to speed. the truth is global politics has a way of testing new leaders whether the united states or elsewhere and we don't know whether we will have that luxury in japan or elsewhere. >> joe biden said six months he will be tested. [laughter] >> that's right. [laughter] >> csis, would you like to get a final question or maybe you have a comment. >> first i want to thank tcu and the school of journalism for

sponsoring these programs. this has been an outstanding panel today. we are glad to have you back, steve, mike, we are glad to have you here. you have to make great job and we appreciate the school of journalism both meaning the school after you and assigning you to this important task working with csis is terrific. i have been reminded today by the panel unanimous view that politicians should not on their own try to frame questions that we need bureaucrats and staff people for that purpose but nevertheless i will close with one question and that is energy and environment. did it come up much in the campaign. would either of those issues or do you expect any significant change in the new government? >> i am thinking that line for this panel which is tell japan be good to bureaucrats and staffers. [laughter] >> ponder more. [laughter]

>> steve made a good point about japan not getting credit for all it can do and has done significant pledges, but also very significant targets for climate change and the dpj his in the manifesto was not the ldp in the cuts they have pledged to make. i think they will find a very hard but they are definitely setting -- they are paid far forward on climate change and that is one. on the nuclear power it will be interesting. the dprk has a bit of a mixed set of views on nuclear power in japan. but i think generally japan will keep as everyone has had moving in the direction of nuclear power they have on the proliferation site without a lot of signals they want to do more on reducing nuclear weapons on article 6 of the conventional test ban treaty.

not a lot of specifics yet but i think there is a lot of potential for u.s. and other countries to work with the government and see what japan can do in terms of realistic policies to reduce nuclear weapons and deal with proliferation. there's a lot of idealism and what they have put out. i think the mainstream in japan is still very concerned about the credibility of extended. we shouldn't be confused by this. yes there is idealistic overtly and the desire to do this book right believe is a concern about the credibility of extended deterrence so this is a right. to not only be sure of japan but i think for curt and others to come up with a protective agenda to take some of these ambitious views the government has of the nuclear weapons and put them in practice. >> steve, why don't you -- >> just very quickly, i agree with everything on the nuclear weapons issue. these were very big issues.

the dbj was talking about quality-of-life of the local level to improve but also jumping from that to a sort of global quality-of-life and it's had a very speenineteen character and from the policy perspective talking a policy staff again to make a plea for the bureaucrats within the dpj they see lots of opportunities given the skills strengths of being innovative driving force of green economy and i think much more so than the united states is in the position to be and so on energy environment i think they see these as areas of collaboration, strength, skill. we recently had -- i think they look at the move the united states is moving in, the chairman of the folks recently trying to say we will give you our technology to help. we see all of this as a business economic opportunity for the

revitalization and the dpj has been trumpeting that. >> secretary

>> a couple of live events to tell you about here today on c-span. vice president joe biden speaks on the economy at 10:00 a.m. eastern. just after noon eastern, the nonpartisan alliance for health reform hosts a discussion looking at the future of health care legislation. panelists include gale rolensky, former head of the financing administration. house speaker nancy pelosi says the house version of health care legislation will include a public option. her comments yesterday took about a half an hour.

the costs to our budget in terms of entitlement, medicare and medicaid is skyrocketing, then stick with the status quo. right now we have an opportunity for change which is an opportunity not only of a lifetime but a historic opportunity. the president has said, he's called for a quality, affordable, accessible health care that will lower cost, improve quality, expand coverage and retain choice for the american people. if you like what you have, you can keep it. we've seen health care as a competitiveness issue, whether for our businesses, especially for our small businesses, some provide health care insurance and some do not but it's a

competitiveness issue and for those who do, even moderate and larger size businesses, it is a big, big administrative cost. it is a competitive issue as we compete nationwide. so for individual families and their needs, for businesses and their competitiveness, then making good business decisions based on attracting the best possible talent, for our economy to have the dynamism. how many people do you know who have said i would like to change jobs but i can't leave the health plan that i have now because my child has diabetes or someone in my family is bipolar, any preexisting condition? so we want to have the full benefit of all of the talent that we have to start a small business, to be self-employed,

to change jobs and not, again, be confined both for that individual, for those businesses and for our economy to be confined. the big issue, of course, out there is the issue of a public option. i have said over and over again, and i commit to this, that the bill that will pass the house of representatives will have a public option in it. again, i support what the president has said. he said that he believes that the public option is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest, to increase competition in order to have lower costs, expand coverage and retain choice. he has also said if you have a better way of doing it, put it on the table. and that's, of course, we're always open to a better way of achieving those goals.

so far we have not seen it. so when we go back, we will be working to bring our three bills together that have passed three different committees of the house to bring to the floor with the public option. i think what might be interesting for you to know is that in the legislation, we are trying to have it be very innovative. we're talking about comparative effectiveness. we're talking about quality, not quantity of health care. value, not volume of procedures. we're talking about the resulting the -- the wellness of the person, not necessarily the utilization of procedures. so that's how we hope to reduce some of the cost. there's despairities in the medicare reimbursements that we have to address in the bill and some of that relates to this utilization issue. we have strong commitment to

prevention and to wellness. it's about diet, it's not about diabetes. it's about prevention, not amputation. it's about early intervention and that's why i'm so pleased that in the legislation, we have to be specific in one instance, no co-payment, no co-pay for prevention services. so that's, i think, very important. but again, these issues relate to how we feed our children, how we educate them about wellness, how we ourselves take responsibility, take responsibility for our good health. there are reforms in the package that are very important. insurance reforms. no longer would an insurance company be able to prohibit you from having coverage because you have a preexisting medical condition.

as i said before, no co-payment for prevention services. you cannot get your insurance rescinded just because you get sick. i don't know how they call that insurance. you pay the premium, you get sick, they rescind the policy, the coverage. no longer can that happen. there are other provisions that relate to if you pay your premiums that they cannot cut you off. very important to the disabilities community in the broadest sense of that term, there is a company on what you pay in. there is no cap on the benefit you receive. no yearly cap, no lifetime cap. this is very important, as i say, to the disabilities community. this is very, very, i think, a

very excellent proposal. i'm sure you've heard when it comes to seniors, the aarp has not endorsed any particular bill, but they have endorsed insurance -- health insurance reform. it is absolutely necessary for our country. of particular interest to all of you are the provisions on small business and i won't go into it except to say you have it in your folder. what we try to do in the legislation, and it is evolving so i invite your suggestions and comments, probably not right here because you're in the middle of a panel, but you can convey them to my office. what we try to do there is to recognize that over half the people in america who are not insured are people who work for small businesses or who own small businesses. we had a woman come speak to --

at one of our events who said she had a small business, a coffee shop. she had seven employees. she had to take a part-time job someplace else in order to get health insurance for herself. so what we want to do is make it affordable. that is what we do in the legislation. 95% of small businesses will not be subjected to any surcharge in this legislation. some will. and again, as you read over the page, let me know what you think. but we do see it as an emancipation, a liberation for business in america to have health care be much more affordable. we do this, in my view, through the public option which is sort of the insurer of competition. we do this by having the exchange where people can go to get their insurance just the way members of congress do.

choose from plans. there will be subsidies at some level and we're debating what that level is, of income and what the amount of subsidies will be and there are -- and again, there will be, i think, a stimulus to the private insurance companies to compete and for costs to come down. and we just talk about costs. it's absolutely essential that we contain costs as we go forward. the bill will be limited in terms of what it will cost. it will be below $1 trillion. a lot of money, over 10 years. over $500 billion of that, about $500 billion of that will come from savings in the system. squeezing systems out of the system. the rest of it, should it be necessary, and i believe with

the prevention issues, initiatives that we have in the legislation that we won't need as much as the congressional budget office which doesn't give you credit for prevention says we will need but as we do that, we will have the bill paid for. so this bill, over the 10-year period and each year will be paid for. a. b, we must at the same time bend the curve of cost. it's not just good enough to pay for this bill, although that is a great thing. we must bend the curve of cost in our health care system. and it's important for the individual, again, to the family, to the business, to the economy and to the national budget. the president has said rightfully so that health care reform is entitlement reform. unless we can turn -- bend that curve of increase over 2% or 3%

over inflation, the rising cost of health care in our country, unless we can turn that around, we will have an unsustainable, as we do now, as we're leading into now an unsustainable increase to our deficit. we want to reverse that with this legislation. so it's a pretty exciting opportunity. we're listening very carefully across country to legitimate concerns that people have about costs and coverage and what this means to them if you're a senior, if you're a veteran, if you're a student, if you're a young person -- well, san francisco already is leading the way in covering young people, up until 26 years old. when they turn 27 they have to go into another program. but that is leadership in the country. we have a moral imperative to do this. greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world. great economic leader of the

developed world, the only one that does not have access to quality, affordable health care for our people. and we intend to do so. as you all know, being here and hearing from our health care professionals as you are in the midst of doing now, i understand, we have -- america has to be very, very proud of our health care system in terms of what we can do. but we have to be even prouder about what we can do for all americans as we invest more heavily in basic biomedical research to get the answers to invest in technologies, will give us customized, personalized care. again, the comparative effect -- effectiveness that we will have. not over utilization but the appropriate remedy for people that we will do this with a vast, which we've already begun

in the recovery package in january, less infusion of funds into the community health centers which will be our distribution and how we reach out to people to bring them in, the commitment to a common electronic record that everyone in america is part of so that we understand the health of america and what we can learn from it and that we understand that the most privileged person in america's health care is improved and the poorest person in america has access to health care as well because we learned from each other. and again, electronic medical records for individuals. but we have to think in an entrepreneurial way, and i know you're all entrepreneurs who are here. just think in that way.

let's keep what works, let's change what isn't working. let's do it now and people talk about what happened in the early 1990's. the technology has taken us so far from that place. it has increased our possibilities to such an extent that, for example, even affects location. our community health centers are able to provide better care because they have the records right there. they're in place electronically. people who are working people who don't have all the time in the world to make appointments and long distances can have the health care closer sooner and therefore, making them healthier. this is not just about changing health care and health insurance in america. it's about making america healthier. so we're very excited about the possibility, about the president's leadership. this is the legislative process and it's pretty exciting and i

know at the end of the day that our measure of success will be the progress that is made in each and every family in america, to give them -- to make them healthier, to give them more financial stability because they know they would not be pufferized by one telephone call, one diagnosis, one accident that their lives will be changed. there will be change in many respects. it shouldn't be that they have the stress of economic concerns throughout. so i thank you for your interest in this subject. i look forward to hearing from you on some of these issues. i say to those who are talking about, well, let's just do a little bit and a little bit and a little bit and i say, well, johnson settled for half a load when he did medicare so why don't we settle for half a loaf? this is the other half of that

loaf. the other half of that loaf. i'm not into giving out slices of bread now because that's what you do when you start splitting up the other half of the loaf. we want to have a bold, common sense &ñinitiative that works. that works for the american people. and i harken back to martin luther king always when he talked about the fierce urgency of now. this is the time for us. we must do it. president used that quote quite a bit in his campaign and his presidency and that was the rest of the "i had a dream" speech. the reverend king went on to say we must be aware of the dangerous luxury of gradualism. we must be bold. we intend to be bold. we intend to do it right. we intend to make america healthier. thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you

on this subject. we will have a public option. >> only 40% of americans that are now supporting the health care plan, what is the post labor day plan to get back in the game on this? >> we're in the game. i'm pleased about what happened nationwide. in each of the districts, one district at a time across america, our members have taken the message about our plan to the constituents. they've listened to what they had to say. they will bring back the suggestions they have from their districts. but we're ready to go. and i was pleased that when you're talking about polls this morning, 53-36 support a public option. i'm excited about that. we're ready. you know, we go into session

next week and we'll immediately begin bringing our bills together and taking it to the floor of the house. >> and the recent remarks, like grassley and some others in the republican side, do you see an indication that republicans are walking away? >> well, you be the judge. i think their remarks were self evident. >> white house official today said he thought the republicans were walking away. do you think they are? >> the president has placed a high premium and i agree with him on striving for bipartisanship. he's tried everything that he can. he's given a long time to work it out and hopefully, he can achieve some of it. i don't want to characterize what's happening in the senate on the republican side. i would rather talk about the house side. on the house side, we're very excited about the strength of our bill, the enthusiasm of our members and our prospects for success. we will have a bill.

>> will there be stages to the public option? the president doesn't want to really talk about they're saying. >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure -- i don't know about any changes to the public option. as i have said right from day one, the president has said the public option is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest. it's a way to increase competition, to have better quality, lower cost, broader coverage and retained choice that people have. if they like what they have, they can keep it. if you have a better way to do this, put it on the table. we're waiting for someone to put something on the table. i think the public option keeps this all together. what we want to do, do it in an exchanges that allows the affordability, accessibility and the quality for all americans. >> there are a number of democrats and members of your own party who are in more

conservative districts who say they don't support a public option. >> yeah. we will have a public option in the bill. the bills that have passed in the three committees on which all of our -- we have great diversity on our committees from right to left, genderwise, philosophic, every way the diversity is represented there. in all three committees we have come out with a public option so we will have a public option in the bill. let me say it another way. we can't pass a bill without a public option unless someone comes up with a better idea which we haven't heard yet. >> the republicans without support of a public option -- [inaudible] if a public option doesn't necessarily get through this time, the insurance companies would be sort of held to some sort of -- if costs don't get lowered, then the trigger mix

comes in. is there some wiggle room possibly? >> it depends. the fact is the insurance companies have had a very long time to demonstrate their sense of responsibility to the greater good. i think that they have demonstrated that we need a public option. i respect what the senator is saying and my understanding among those who support a trigger, that it would be a very robust public option when it comes in. it wouldn't be one of these pull the trigger and boom, pop one of those flags out. it would be a robust public option so they may prefer a compromise public option now to a more robust one later. but we want a robust one now. all of this is negotiated. we go through the legislative process. our committees passed our bills. we're waiting to see the second committee in the senate.

we'll bring our bills. we're working on that now, present that to our members, find our consensus, take it to the floor and then we go to conferences. senate will work its will and then what's really important is the leadership of the president of the united states. without his leadership, we wouldn't be where we are which is poised to do something very historic. i'm very confident about that. >> does he need to take a kinder role in these negotiations and saying this is what we're going for? >> i think he has carefully listened, heard what the house senate, democrats, republicans and the rest are concerned about and certainly and foremost the american people, and i'm quite certain that we will be hearing from the president soon. that is to say now is the time to say here are the choices. we have many excellent ideas. we have a finite amount of money to spend. we must lower costs, we have to establish priorities.

so it's not just about what's every good thing we can think of to put in the bill. it's about the priorities. the president has had to choose to govern or to govern is to choose. either way. these are choices we have to make now. with this array of great prospects that we have now, i'm sure that the president will weigh in and tell us the direction from his perspective that he wants to sign into law. but do not be -- do not be distracted by one thing and another. it will happen. it will be great and it will be soon. >> the criticism of the stopping and restarting of patriotic music? >> i've never been on an elevator at the capitol that had music. it was news to me that had music. to have music in the elevators, i think it's perfectly

appropriate to have patriotic music. i've been there 22 years and i've not heard a single note on any elevator. >> or the phone lines? >> i think that's an individual choice of members, isn't it? i don't know. >> at first they said it was chosen by the main congressional district. >> by the main congressional -- we're not fully up to date on what this is but i -- we're trying to address the climate change crisis, trying to reform health care in america, build an education. the three pillars of the president's budget. education, health care and energy. we passed an energy bill, we're back to pass the health bill and we'll pass the education bill soon. i just haven't had time to listen on the phone to see what music is playing there. >> one more question.

what's your time line? >> well, when we're ready we'll go to the floor. when we go to the floor, we will win. we'll be ready and we won't go before we're ready and we'll be ready before we go. it will be soon. we're going to pass a bill. let's make it a positive way. we don't think in terms of when is it too late. the american people have been waiting a very long time for this remedy. their hopes and aspirations are for a health care reform. you hear some who don't believe in government having a role in it and that's their legitimate belief. you have others who question provisions in this bill and the cost and that is legitimate. and we have to -- but the fact is, as i said in there, the president always says we will measure our success by the progress made in america's

family for their own economic stability and health care costs are related to their economic stability. so it's too late already in terms of not passing 44 years ago when medicare passed, but it will happen in a timely fashion. i have every confidence that that will be the case, that it will make a difference in the lives of the american people, that it will be important to our business community which is important to our economy and it will be important to lower the entitlement costs to our country. it is -- it's pretty exciting. it's pretty exciting and i look forward to -- never look forward to leaving california but exciting to get back to washington to put all of this into place as we go forward. again, under the leadership of obama to whom we are all eternally grateful for making this the important issue that it is in his agenda because it is in the lives of the american people. >> thank you all very much.

thank you. . .